Scientific Method —

Arctic sea ice coverage plunges to record low

Weather and climate combine to set a record with weeks of melt still to come.

Our planet's warming climate has been felt most strongly in the Arctic, and the ice that covers much of the sea has been responding accordingly. Although large areas of the Arctic Ocean freeze over every winter and spring (without sunlight, things are guaranteed to get very cold), the amount of ice cover seen during the melt season has been edging down since we started monitoring by satellite. Now, a combination of the general climate trends and an unusual weather event have pushed the Arctic ice cover to record lows and, with several weeks left in the melt season, the final low could be a dramatic one.

The annual rhythm of the Arctic Sea's changes looks a bit like a heartbeat. Ice starts to expand and thicken in the autumn, and reaches its peak in the early spring, a few months after the coldest part of winter. The ice then contracts, with the area covered shrinking throughout the spring and summer, and bottoming out in the first weeks of September.

Climate change hasn't stopped that cycle, but it has altered it in dramatic ways. Ice still expands rapidly in the autumn and winter—in fact, over the last few springs, the area covered with ice has often approached the average seen in the last few decades of the 20th century. (That includes this year, where May saw ice coverage that nearly reached the 1979-2000 average.)

However, the losses in recent summers, including the dramatic decline in ice seen in 2007, has changed the character of the heartbeat. Very little of this newly formed ice, which is relatively thin, can survive the warm temperatures of the summer. As a result, every year since 2007 has seen the loss of most of the thin ice formed during the winter, leading to a series of summer melts that were well below the baseline average of the satellite record.

This year started off following the same script. After approaching the baseline average in the spring, the sea ice extent (measured as the area of ocean with at least 15 percent ice coverage) followed a trajectory similar to those seen in most of the last five years before spending most of July just below the levels seen in 2007, the year that had set the previous record low.

Then, in early August, weather intervened, in the form of an unusual storm that entered the Arctic ocean and parked at the pole for several days. At the time, NASA expected it meant bad things for the sea ice. “It seems that this storm has detached a large chunk of ice from the main sea ice pack. This could lead to a more serious decay of the summertime ice cover than would have been the case otherwise, even perhaps leading to a new Arctic sea ice minimum,” said Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist with NASA Goddard. “Decades ago, a storm of the same magnitude would have been less likely to have as large an impact on the sea ice, because at that time the ice cover was thicker and more expansive.”

Enlarge/ Sea ice extent has now dropped below the 2007 record, with weeks still to go before the melt stops for the winter.

Parkinson's predictions have now been borne out. The sea ice saw a sudden and precipitous decline that started right about the start of the storm. Even after the storm dispersed, however, the ice has continued to melt at a pace similar to that seen in the early summer, and has shown no sign of the bottoming out that often begins to be apparent at this time of e year.

The RealClimate blog, using data obtained by the National Snow and Ice Data Center, has calculated that the daily sea ice extent readings are now the lowest on record. The NSIDC itself uses a five-day running average, and so its numbers will tend to trail the trends seen in the daily readings. Nevertheless, yesterday's data shows the 2012 melt as being at or below the previous record set in 2007. (The AP is now reporting that they've also called the record low, although their website does not yet reflect this.)

The obvious question on everyone's minds is where ice coverage will bottom out. The average from the first few decades of the satellite era is in the neighborhood of 7 million square kilometers, but this year is almost certain to see a bottom somewhere below 4 million. That's still a long way from an ice-free Arctic, but it's clear that we can't dismiss that scenario as being part of some distant, purely hypothetical future. A practically ice-free Arctic—one where shipping lanes consistently stay open for weeks—is likely to come even sooner.

The less obvious question, and one we won't answer anytime soon, is whether this year's record low will trigger the sort of regime change caused by the dramatic 2007 melt. Although new record lows didn't immediately follow on 2007, none of the years that followed it ever came close to the baseline average established last century. 2007 ensured that most of the ice would be too thin to survive, making certain that every other year would be similar to it even if the temperature and weather remained roughly stable. There's a very real chance that 2012's record, even though it was driven in part by an unusual weather event, will also alter the Arctic heartbeat.

Isn’t some of it holding back glaciers in Greenland? If we could get the glaciers into the water it might raise the sea level a bit.. how much rise are you looking for?

I heard something this morning about the federal government spending $15 billion to shore up New Orleans levy system.. and they already had an existing system in place. It might run.. what? $40billion+ to build a new system.. how many coastal cities do we have? Maybe we can buy in bulk and get a discount.

La Nina!Heat islands!Evil George Soros!Miller Urey was fake!It was warmer in the middle ages!That lying liar Al Gore, known internet scammer!It was cold and rainy this weekend, therefore you are wrong.

Monitor the activity of the sun. Monitoring solar flare activity (coronal mass ejections) results in an empirical way to extrapolate weather patterns and global temperature shifts.

The sun undergoes 10-12 year cycles, beginning each cycle with periods of high coronal mass ejections and ending with periods of low coronal mass ejections. We are presently experiencing the beginning of one of these cycles, which means the global temperatures will be warmer. As each cycle concludes the global temperatures will decline. Periodically these cycles last longer. The result of a longer period of high coronal mass ejection activity, markedly the beginning of a cycle, is warmer global temperatures. Certain geographic areas experience lower rainfall and/or droughts during these periods. Greater ice shelf melting is also common during these periods. The result of longer periods of little to no coronal mass ejection activity, markedly the end of a cycle, is lower global temperatures.

Interestingly enough, the state of the ozone layer also correlates to these cycles. The ozone layer thins at the beginning of these cycles when coronal mass ejection activity is higher and thickens toward the end of these cycles when coronal mass ejection activity is lower.

There is real science behind measuring global temperature shifts, which impact things like arctic ice melt and accumulation. That science is closely tied to monitoring the activity of the sun. The sun's activity has the greatest impact on global temperature changes. Just monitor the constancy and magnitude of coronal mass ejection activity. It is observable and measurable.

Also have a look at the concentration map at http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/. Much of what is coloured white in the figure on this page is in fact only 50% ice. New mechanisms come into play: the swell that was never there now breaking up the ice, wind-driven ocean currents in the opposite direction of the old density-driven ones.

Monitor the activity of the sun. Monitoring solar flare activity (coronal mass ejections) results in an empirical way to extrapolate weather patterns and global temperature shifts.

The sun undergoes 10-12 year cycles, beginning each cycle with periods of high coronal mass ejections and ending with periods of low coronal mass ejections. We are presently experiencing the beginning of one of these cycles, which means the global temperatures will be warmer. As each cycle concludes the global temperatures will decline. Periodically these cycles last longer. The result of a longer period of high coronal mass ejection activity, markedly the beginning of a cycle, is warmer global temperatures. Certain geographic areas experience lower rainfall and/or droughts during these periods. Greater ice shelf melting is also common during these periods. The result of longer periods of little to no coronal mass ejection activity, markedly the end of a cycle, is lower global temperatures.

Interestingly enough, the state of the ozone layer also correlates to these cycles. The ozone layer thins at the beginning of these cycles when coronal mass ejection activity is higher and thickens toward the end of these cycles when coronal mass ejection activity is lower.

There is real science behind measuring global temperature shifts, which impact things like arctic ice melt and accumulation. That science is closely tied to monitoring the activity of the sun. The sun's activity has the greatest impact on global temperature changes. Just monitor the constancy and magnitude of coronal mass ejection activity. It is observable and measurable.

Please don't take this the wrong way, I'm actually curious to read more about this, so could you provide some sources/links?

The key is figuring out when the Arctic passages will be open next year so we can plan for decreased shipping costs. But it sounds like we can really start to count on the shipping lanes being free the last two weeks of August and at least the first week of September. So with proper planning we should be able to save a fair amount of fuel (definitely would want to aim for development cycles that can benefit from that kind of shipping). It is a shame the ice is only gone for a few weeks. What we need is a couple months to make the Arctic shipping lanes really useful.

Monitor the activity of the sun. Monitoring solar flare activity (coronal mass ejections) results in an empirical way to extrapolate weather patterns and global temperature shifts.

The sun undergoes 10-12 year cycles, beginning each cycle with periods of high coronal mass ejections and ending with periods of low coronal mass ejections. We are presently experiencing the beginning of one of these cycles, which means the global temperatures will be warmer. As each cycle concludes the global temperatures will decline. Periodically these cycles last longer. The result of a longer period of high coronal mass ejection activity, markedly the beginning of a cycle, is warmer global temperatures. Certain geographic areas experience lower rainfall and/or droughts during these periods. Greater ice shelf melting is also common during these periods. The result of longer periods of little to no coronal mass ejection activity, markedly the end of a cycle, is lower global temperatures.

Interestingly enough, the state of the ozone layer also correlates to these cycles. The ozone layer thins at the beginning of these cycles when coronal mass ejection activity is higher and thickens toward the end of these cycles when coronal mass ejection activity is lower.

There is real science behind measuring global temperature shifts, which impact things like arctic ice melt and accumulation. That science is closely tied to monitoring the activity of the sun. The sun's activity has the greatest impact on global temperature changes. Just monitor the constancy and magnitude of coronal mass ejection activity. It is observable and measurable.

Very good post. I always find it funny that instead of going to things like the sun we go to a hockey stick graph that some how shows causation. No one argues that the planet isn't getting warmer, the argument is whether or not humans have a direct impact on that or not.

Monitor the activity of the sun. Monitoring solar flare activity (coronal mass ejections) results in an empirical way to extrapolate weather patterns and global temperature shifts.

The sun undergoes 10-12 year cycles, beginning each cycle with periods of high coronal mass ejections and ending with periods of low coronal mass ejections. We are presently experiencing the beginning of one of these cycles, which means the global temperatures will be warmer. As each cycle concludes the global temperatures will decline. Periodically these cycles last longer. The result of a longer period of high coronal mass ejection activity, markedly the beginning of a cycle, is warmer global temperatures. Certain geographic areas experience lower rainfall and/or droughts during these periods. Greater ice shelf melting is also common during these periods. The result of longer periods of little to no coronal mass ejection activity, markedly the end of a cycle, is lower global temperatures.

Interestingly enough, the state of the ozone layer also correlates to these cycles. The ozone layer thins at the beginning of these cycles when coronal mass ejection activity is higher and thickens toward the end of these cycles when coronal mass ejection activity is lower.

There is real science behind measuring global temperature shifts, which impact things like arctic ice melt and accumulation. That science is closely tied to monitoring the activity of the sun. The sun's activity has the greatest impact on global temperature changes. Just monitor the constancy and magnitude of coronal mass ejection activity. It is observable and measurable.

Of course! Why haven't climate scientists thought about the Sun! It's so simple even an idiot could think of it!

Good info. I like the Sea Ice Area measure done by Cryosphere Today over the Sea Ice Extent done by NSIDC. Since NSIDC measures areas that have more than 15% ice as being all ice, there is an OVER-statement of the amount of ice by NSIDC.

Start looking at the winter maximum. For the last several years it has been about one million sq K less than historical levels. As this measure declines, there is that much less ice to melt the following summer.

The importance of the loss of Arctic sea ice is the INDIRECT impact on sea level rise. Melting sea ice does NOT contribute to sea level rise directly. BUT, it does mean loss of albedo, and a greater absorption of the sun's energy. As the Arctic ocean warms, the air above it warms, and then the land around it. So, permafrost melts, undersea methane is released, and warm air goes over Greenland. All are bad news.

well if one good thing comes from this, it might mean the end of that stupid show, Ice Road Truckers. probably won't have any effect on Deadliest Catch though... those shows are cutting into the Mythbusters' budget!

Monitor the activity of the sun. Monitoring solar flare activity (coronal mass ejections) results in an empirical way to extrapolate weather patterns and global temperature shifts.

The sun undergoes 10-12 year cycles, beginning each cycle with periods of high coronal mass ejections and ending with periods of low coronal mass ejections. We are presently experiencing the beginning of one of these cycles, which means the global temperatures will be warmer. As each cycle concludes the global temperatures will decline. Periodically these cycles last longer. The result of a longer period of high coronal mass ejection activity, markedly the beginning of a cycle, is warmer global temperatures. Certain geographic areas experience lower rainfall and/or droughts during these periods. Greater ice shelf melting is also common during these periods. The result of longer periods of little to no coronal mass ejection activity, markedly the end of a cycle, is lower global temperatures.

Interestingly enough, the state of the ozone layer also correlates to these cycles. The ozone layer thins at the beginning of these cycles when coronal mass ejection activity is higher and thickens toward the end of these cycles when coronal mass ejection activity is lower.

There is real science behind measuring global temperature shifts, which impact things like arctic ice melt and accumulation. That science is closely tied to monitoring the activity of the sun. The sun's activity has the greatest impact on global temperature changes. Just monitor the constancy and magnitude of coronal mass ejection activity. It is observable and measurable.

Very good post. I always find it funny that instead of going to things like the sun we go to a hockey stick graph that some how shows causation. No one argues that the planet isn't getting warmer, the argument is whether or not humans have a direct impact on that or not.

OMG! Of course! That explains everything. Climate scientists must be pissed off at you for catching their error. Years of research, all down the drain. Granted, it's easy to miss the sun when one is sitting in a basement all day staring at a computer screen, but still, that's no excuse!

Who cares about a record that is just 30 years old? We're talking climate over tens of thousands of years no? The Arctic has completely melted before and may do so again.

I'm not sure what your point is. If the point is, "30 years is not enough time to establish a credible baseline", there may be something to that, though the standard deviation looks pretty tight.

Alternately,there's a whole school of thought regarding climate change in general which says, "it happened before, so how bad can it really be." And while is true it is unlikely humanity would face extinction or anything like that, the current distribution of cities, arable land, geopolitical boundaries, economic systems, and so forth are established with certain climate expectations (justified over recorded human history). If that all gets reconfigured, it could be very painful for a lot of people.

Monitor the activity of the sun. Monitoring solar flare activity (coronal mass ejections) results in an empirical way to extrapolate weather patterns and global temperature shifts.

The sun undergoes 10-12 year cycles, beginning each cycle with periods of high coronal mass ejections and ending with periods of low coronal mass ejections. We are presently experiencing the beginning of one of these cycles, which means the global temperatures will be warmer. As each cycle concludes the global temperatures will decline. Periodically these cycles last longer. The result of a longer period of high coronal mass ejection activity, markedly the beginning of a cycle, is warmer global temperatures. Certain geographic areas experience lower rainfall and/or droughts during these periods. Greater ice shelf melting is also common during these periods. The result of longer periods of little to no coronal mass ejection activity, markedly the end of a cycle, is lower global temperatures.

Interestingly enough, the state of the ozone layer also correlates to these cycles. The ozone layer thins at the beginning of these cycles when coronal mass ejection activity is higher and thickens toward the end of these cycles when coronal mass ejection activity is lower.

There is real science behind measuring global temperature shifts, which impact things like arctic ice melt and accumulation. That science is closely tied to monitoring the activity of the sun. The sun's activity has the greatest impact on global temperature changes. Just monitor the constancy and magnitude of coronal mass ejection activity. It is observable and measurable.

Very good post. I always find it funny that instead of going to things like the sun we go to a hockey stick graph that some how shows causation. No one argues that the planet isn't getting warmer, the argument is whether or not humans have a direct impact on that or not.

Of course the frightening part is that they have done this work, and the sun's influence has been in decline since 1987. Meaning that the current warming cycle is despite a decrease in solar forcings. Imagine what is going to happen during the next solar cycle when it ramps back up...

Fox News will likely extoll the loss of Arctic Sea ice as a boon for all. Shipping lanes will open for longer, offshore drilling in the Arctic will expand, and profits for all of the one-percent will be enhanced. That the "peasants" in various countries, especially Europe, will suffer drastic consequences due to the eventual shutting down of the Gulf Stream conveyor belt of warm water will be immaterial. That the Earth is being treated as an inexhaustible resource, which it's not, and not treated as a virtually closed-system, which it is, is the important take-away from all of this.

No matter what the perfectly-coiffed talking heads say in the various media, the reality is that we're cannibalizing our "spaceship" today with no thought for tomorrow. The Earth is the ultimate "generation-ship" as written about in numerous science fiction novels. It's too bad that we treat it more like a short-term cruise ship with its sole purpose being the provision of luxury for the first-class passengers as subsidized by the folks in steerage.

In a way, I'm glad I'm middle-aged because I really don't want to see the world of "Bladerunner" materialize. My only regret is that my children and grandchildren likely will.

Who cares about a record that is just 30 years old? We're talking climate over tens of thousands of years no? The Arctic has completely melted before and may do so again.

Some people will continue to sing lalalala until they lose their house to this. Nothing else will convince them.

anyone who lives close enough to sea level (at least from texas to virginia) is probably already used to rebuilding on a regular basis due to storms. they'll just use taller stilts next time they rebuild.

...what makes you think we'll enjoy living in a world with those conditions?

I don't see much indication that anyone enjoys living with the current conditions - might as well try something new.

'Trying something new' with our one-of-a-kind, absolutely unique in the universe as far as we've found so far support system doesn't sound like something we'd want to try randomly. Maybe with careful study and thought it might be worth considering. Myself, I'd like to make a backup plan first.

That the Earth is being treated as an inexhaustible resource, which it's not, and not treated as a virtually closed-system, which it is, is the important take-away from all of this.

No, it isn't, not even close. The whole issue of global warming is managing the balance of input and ouput of staggering quantities of energy, to and from sources completely exogenous to the Earth's biosphere. You might argue that it is effectively closed so far as matter is concerned, but elementally speaking all we do is re-arrange things, e.g. an energy transaction, not a material one.

Who cares about a record that is just 30 years old? We're talking climate over tens of thousands of years no? The Arctic has completely melted before and may do so again.

Were there any humans around when it did?

If not, what makes you think we'll enjoy living in a world with those conditions?

Two comments - what 'conditions' are you speaking of?

And second, I did have poor choice of words. It is certainly interesting and we should care about it, I was speaking more towards the idea humans have suddenly caused this melt as opposed to natural climate variability.